WHIG PRINCIPLES. 




;' 



16 



But, sir, these are not all the advantages and dis- 
coveries I have drawn from the anatomical exami- 
nation I have made, and thus disclosed in "this same 
old eoon;''^ I perceive very distinctly, by the disor- 
dered state of tlie various organs which I have ex- 
amined, that they plainly predict the entire over- 
throw of the federal party, and, with their over- 
throw, the downfall of all their high-toned federal 
measures. Their fate seems to be as distinctly 
marked in the entrails of this animal of whig adora- 
tion, as was the fate of Belshazzar upon the 
wall of his palace chamber; and all the terror that 
seized him, now shakes them. 

I think, sir, I can perceive, with the same di.s- 
tinctness which guided the ancient oracles, in the 
bowels of this emblem of whig principles, the very 
States which w ill cast their roles for the democratic 
nominee of the convention to be held in Baltimore. 
I predict from these si^ns, with oracular certainty, 
tlmt Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, 
South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, New Jer- 
sey, New York, New Plampshire, Pennsylvania, 
Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, 
Arkansas, Tennessee, and Connecticut, will tri- 
umph in tlic election of their respective number of 
democratic electors, Mhich will be one of the most 
triumphant and glorious victories which the democ- 
racy of tliis country or any other ever gained. This 
ia my j^rediction; and let no whig pagan so profane 
himself and his coon religion as to repudiate it; for 
it is drawn from irresistible signs, displayed in the 
"vitals of the animal of liis most sacred and political 
devotion and reverence. Then I would say, in the 
3pirit of all candor, Go ahead, democrats — the signs 
are in your favor. Unfurl your banner to the 
breeze. Triumph will be yours. Victory will once 
more perch upon the democj-atic standard. Once 
more you will teach the revilcra of republican gov- 
ernment, and the enemies of free institutions, that 
the people are capable of self-government. 

Mr. Speaker, patriotism is Uie spirit by which 
our political fabric i.s held together. The elec- 
tive franchise is the soul of our republic, and the 
freeman's boast. Let^t be supported, and it will 
support all the rest; ali will be safe. The solemnity 
of the legal and judicial oath is the sheet-anchor of 
all our mond, religiou^,' and political institutions. 
Let corruption pollute the ballot-box, and perjury 
corrupt the sacred sanctuary of truth, and all is 
lost. Our institutions, poliucal, moral, and religious, 
will all sink together, and the offspring will be as it 
\vas in the French revolution. Your legislati-ve 
halls will present but scenes of butchery. Plunder, 
murder, and arson, will be but Ugalized crimes. 
And, too, as in the French revolution, your Sabbath 
wUl be changed to a decade, and the hottse of God 



to a stable. The word of Grod and your revealed 
religion will be paraded through your streets on an . 
ass, in contemptuous ridicule, and consumed on bon- 
fires. Your Redeemer will be postponed to a mijr- 
derer, and your Maker to a prostitiue, styled the 
goddess of Reason. Your judiciary will be con- 
verted into a triumvirate; your seats of justice into a 
gttillotine; and your fields will be drenched in blood. 
Tiiese, sir, will fill the measure of such iniquity, 
such frauds, snch perjury, and such treason, as 
were practised in 1840, if persisted in, unchecked 

and luirestrained. 

• 

The passage of this bill will destroy the tempta- 
tion and the means to perjietrale such violence. 
Let the whirlwinds and tempests of party spirit and 
party passion run mountain high; the safety of the 
republic, tJie purity of the ballot-box,' and the secu- 
rity of our free institutions, will not be drawn into 
the vortex and wreck of ruin. Can we not lay aside 
all party feelings for this time, and on this occasion, 
and come up as one man in support of diis measure^ 
Now is the time — now is the day. We are on the 
eve of another presidential election, whic'a will 
elicit every feeling and every corrupt passion which 
party strife can engender; and is there not danger 
that the same scenes of 1840 will be acted over? Is 
there not danger that our moral, our political, our* 
free, and on.r religious institiUions, may receive 
another shock, which may palsy them beyond re- 
coveryr 

Sir, my he^art is fixed and set on the passage of 
this bill; and I feel as though I have a right to ap- 
peal to the pa.rioti.sm of this House for its support; 
and if I had die voice of thunder, I would ex-tend 
that appeal to the remotest parts of this Union. I 
woidd awalcen the attention of every patriot, of every 
lover of human liberty, and of our free institution.'* 
and their duration, to the support of this measure. I 
would invoke him, in \Sv- name of human liberty, and 
on behalf of his free institutions, by which he ex- 
jiects to perpetuate that liberty; in the name of that 
majesty which is his. by the rights of a freeman, to 
send forth his voice to this hall, and demand, and 
commnnd his representative to support this bill — to 
make lliis bill a lav/ of this land. 

I would extend that appeal, too, to every presc5, tii 
potent engine of human liberty, and the terror oi 
crowned heads. I would ask them to rai.se the 
strong arm and the loud voic* in favor of this bill. 
I would say to them, now is the time, and this is the 
occasion, which demand that influence which is 
theirs. I would ask that same influence in behalf 
and in support of this measure, which has demolished 
thrpnes, torn crowns from the heads of despots, 
broken crosiers, and redeemed naiions, 



i^. 



■m^ 



SPEECH 



OF 



MR. BUCHANAN, OF PENNSYLVANIA 



4 



ON 



THE OREGON Q 




TION. 



~J 



j^^M7^> 



DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNJ^f^D' STATES, MARCH 12, 1844. 



tm., 



The following resolution offered by Mr. Sempi.e tiolP^^^teifroBg^^y 
being under consideration: 

Resolved, That the President of the United States be re- 

auested to give notice to the British government that it is 
le desire pf the government of the tnitt-d States to annul 
and abrogate the provisions of the third article of tlie con- 
vention concluded between the government of the United 
States of America and his Britannic Majesty the King of the 
United Kingdom of Great Biitain and Ireland on the 20th 
October. 181 S. and indefinitely continued by the convention 
between the same parties, signed at London the 6th August, 
1827. 

Mr. BUCHANAN rose and said: 
Mr. Presthent: I feel deeply impressed with the 
importance of the question now untJer discussiion, 
and of the necessity wliich exists for its speedy ad- 
justment. My conviction is strong that a peaceful 
settlement of this question can only be accomplished 
by prompt but prudent action on the part of this 
government. We are all anxious that it should be 
settled in peace; and there i.s no senator on this floor 
more anxious for sucli a liappy consummation 
than myself. Wliilst this is the desire of my heart, 
I am yet firmly convinced that the mode by v.'hich 
senators on the other side desire to attain this desira- 
ble end will utterly fail. Already wc are sending 
numerous emigrants every year across the Rocky 
mountains; and we are sending them there without 
the protection of law, and without the restraints of 
civil government. We have left them, hitherto, to 
the unlimited control of their own passions. We 
must send them laws and a regular form of govern- 
ment. We must take them under our protection, 
and subject them to the restraints of law, if we would 
prevent collisions between them and the British oc- 
cupants — the servants and people of the Hudson Bay 
company. This we must do, if we would preserve 
peace between the two nations. The present is a 
question, not of mere theory, but of practical states- 
manship; and I sincerely hope that such a course 
may be pursued as will sustain the rights of the 
country to tl)e territory in dispute, and, at the same 
time, preserve the peace of the world. 

1 care but little as to the mere form of the resolu- 



^ 



the senator from Illinois, [Mr. 
Semple.] If it be not altogether perfect, it can easily 
be amended. This I shall say, however: we ought 
not to expect that the President, under existing cir- 
cumstances, would assume the responsibility of giving 
the proposed notice for the purpose of terminating the 
treaty of joint occupancy, without the sanction of one 
or both Houses of Congress. The treaties of 1818 
tuid 1827 are the law of the land. They were rati- 
fied by the constitutional majority of two-thirds of 
the Senate; and their provisions have now been in 
force for more than a quarter of a century. It could 
not, therefore, be expected that the President woidd 
give the proposed notice on his own reponsibility 
alone. On the question of his abstract power to do 
so, I express no o]iinion. V/ithout any technical 
objections to the mere form of the resolution, and 
without further remark, I shall proceed at once to 
the statement and discussion of the main question. 

The third article of the convention of the 20th of 
October, 1818, between the United States and Great 
Britain, contains an agreement that the country on 
the northwest coast of America, westward of the 
Stony mountains, during thjMfcm of ten years, with 
its harbors, bays, and creek^lwid the navigation of 
its rivers, "shall be free and open to the vessels, cit- 
izens, and sitbjects of the two powers," without 
prejudicing the claim of either party to the territory 
m dispute. The provisions of this third article 
were extended for an indefinite period by the con- 
vention of the Gth of August, 1827; subject, how- 
ever, to the condition, that eillier of the parties, "on 
giving due notice of twelve months to the other con- 
tracting party," might "annul and abrogate tliis 
convention." The question, then, is, shall we ad- 
vise the President to give this notice? 

If our government should annul the convention, 
*then each of the parties will be restored to its origi- 
nal rights. In what condition would the United 
Stales then be placed? The northern boundary of 
Mexico, on the Pacific, is the forty-second parallel 
of nortli latitude. By separate treaties between the 



United States and Riissia, and Great Britain and j whole country to themselves, and all the profits to 
Russia, this power has relinquished all claim to any i be derived from its possession. The Hudson Bay 
territory on the northwest coast of America, south company now enjoys the monopoly of the fur trade, 
of the latitude of fifty-four degrees and forty niin- which has poured millions nito its coffers, and has 
utes. Thus the territory in dispute embraces that greatly promoted the commerce and furnished a mar- 
vast region extending along the Pacific ocean, from I ket for the manufactures of the mother country, 
the forty-second degree of north latitude to fifty-four The truth is, that the present treaty of joint occupa- 
degrees and forty minutes north, and running east [tion, although reciprocal between the two nations m 



along these respective parallels of latitude to the 
summit of the Rocky mountains. Now, sir, to the 
whole of this territory — to every foot of it — I be- 
lieve most firmly that we have a clear and conclu- 
sive title. This has not been denied by any sena- 
tor. Under the public law of Christendom, which 
has regTiIated the rights of nations on such ques- 
tions ever since the discovery and settlement of the 
continent of America, the validity of our title can 
be demonstrated. 1 shall, myself, attempt to per- 
form this duty on a future and more appropriate 
occasion, when the bill to establish a territorial gov- 
ernment for Oregon shall come before the Senat.;, 
unless, in the mean time, it shall be accomplished by 
some senator more competent to the task. 

The materials for tliis work of mere condensation 
and abridgment are at hand. They are all to be 
found in the powerful speech of the new senator 
from Illinois, [Mr. Breese,] which has made such 
a favorable impression upon the body; in the able 
and convincing treatise on the subject by a distin- 
guished citizen of Philadelphia, (Peter A. Browne;) 
and, above all, by the facts and arguments, the labor 
of years, collected and presented by Mr. Greenhow, 
in his History of California and Oregon, which has 
exhausted the subject, and left not a doubt of the 
validity of our title. 

Assuming, then, for the present, with the senator 
from Massachusetts, [Mr. Choate,] that our title 
is undoubted, I shall proceed directly to discuss the 
question whether we should give the notice pro- 
jjoscd by the resolution. 

And, in the first place, I shall contend that, if we 
desire to bring the negotiation to a speedy and suc- 
cessful termination — if we wish to make any treaty 
with England at all upon the subject, — it is indis- 
pensably necessary that we should give the notice. 
And why.' From the plainest principles of com- 
mon sense, and from the policy which governs na- 
tions, it cannot be expected — nay, it ought not to be 
expected — that England will voluntai-ily surrender 
the Oregon territory, or any part of it, while the pres- 
ent treat}"- exists, under which she now enjoys the 
whole. The status in quo (as writers on public law 
call it) IS too favorable^ her interests to expect any 
such result. She nojRplds, and has held, the ex- 
clusive possession o^me territory for more than a 
quarter of a century, for every purpose for which 
she desires to use it at the present. The Hudson 
Bay company have claimed high merit from the 
British government for having expelled our hunters 
and traders from the country. We have been in- 
formed by the senator from Missouri, [Mr. Ben- 
ton,] and other western senators, that this com- 
pany — either directly, by their own agents, or indi- 
rectly, by the Indians under their control — have 
murdered between four and five hundred of our fel- 
low-citizens, who had crossed the Rocky mountains 
for the purpose of trading with the natives, and of 
hunting the fur-bearing animals which abound in 
those regions. They have driven away all our citi- 
zens whose pursuits could interfere with their prof- 
its. Under the existing state of things — under the 
present' treaty of joint occupation, — they have the 



point of form, has proved beneficial in point of fact 
to England, and to England alone. She has at pres- 
ent all she can desire; and any change must be for 
the worse. Why, then, should she ^^onsent to di- 
vide, the possession of this Territory with the Uni- 
ted States.' Why should she be willing to surren- 
der any part, when she now enjoys the whole? 
Even if we were to yield to her monstrous proposi- 
tion to make the Columbia river the boundary be- 
tween the two nations, still would she not desire de- 
lay, enjoying already, as she does, the practical 
ownership of the whole territory south, as well as 
north, of that river? 

Knowing the policy which has always actuated 
the British government, I should not be astonished, 
if we could penetrate the cabinet of Mr. Pakenham, 
to find there instructions to this effect: — Delay the 
settlement of the question as long as you can; the 
longer the delay the better for us; under the existing 
treaty we enjoy the whole of the fur trade; under it 
we now possess far greater advantages Uian we caa 
expect under any new treaty. 

They have already all they desire; and, my life 
upon it, there will be no new treaty, if the Senate 
should, as I have no doubt they will, lay this reso- 
lution upon the table for the reasons which have 
been urged in tlje debate. Sir, if this resolution 
should be laid upon the table, accompanied by the 
able and eloquent arguments of senators on the 
other side — by the argument of the senator frora 
Massachusetts [Mr. Choate] in favor of continu- 
ing the present treaty of joint occupation for twenty 
years longer, and tliat of the senator from New 
Jersey [Mr. Miller] against the policy of sending 
our citizens to settle in Oregon at all — in my opin- 
ion, it will be utterly vain even to hope for the con- 
clusion of any treaty. Great Britain will be glad to 
enjoy all the benefits of her present position for an- 
other quarter of a century. 

But if the notice were once given — if it were thus 
rendered certain that the present treaty must expire 
within a year, the British government would then be- 
gin to view tiie subject in a serious light. They 
would then apply themselves in earnest to the settle- 
ment of the question. We owe it to Great Britain — 
we owe it to our own country, to render this a serious 
question; not by offering threats, for these would be 
unworthy of ourselves, and could produce no effect 
upon such a power — but by insisting, in a firm but 
respectful tone, that the dispute which has so long 
existed been the two nations must now be termina- 
ted. When that power shall discover that we are 
at last in earnest and determined to urge the contro- 
versy to a conclusion, then, and not till then, will 
she pay that degree of respect to our rights and to 
our remonstrances "which the proud soul ne'er 
pays but to the proud." 

It is not by abandoning our rights — it is not by 
giving to Great Britain another quarter of a century 
for negotiation, that we can ever secure to ourselves 
our own territory now in her possession. Until 
the notice shall be given — judging from the selfish 
principles which unfortunately too much influeaoe 
the conduct of nationsj as well as individuals — there 



■will be no adjustment of the boundary question. If, 
, upon the mere arrival of a British minister, (and he 
V^ not a special minister like Lord Ashburton, of '^nd 



,been rumored, but a resident envoy extrao- 
^/■We shall a second time arrest our procet^.ngs which 
vhad been commenced Ions: before his name was 
^mentioned for this appointment, and greet him with 
the declaration that we arc willing- to wait for 
twenty years longer, then a treaty will become im- 
possible. 

My second proposition is, that to arrest all legis- 
lative action at llie present moment, and under ex- 
isting circumstances, would evince a Uime and subser- 
vient spirit on our part towards Great Britain, whicli, 
so far from conciliating, would only encourage her 
to persevere in her unjust demands. I would ask", 
when has England, in her foreign policy throughout 
her long aiid eventful history, ever failed to make 
one concession the ground for demanding another? 
A firm and determined spirit is necessary to obtain 
from her both respect and justice. 

The senator from Massachusetts has informed us 
that "this controversy had not heretofore been con- 
sidered as very urgent;" and has stated that "if we 
had waited so quietly for twenty-six years for the 
adjustment of this question, he did not see why we 
should not wait six months longer, instead of adopt- 
ing this measure now." But' is not the senator 
mistaken in supposing that we had waited thus 
quietly for so long a period.? The question has not 
slept for a quarter^of a century. So f.ir from this, 
that from the day when Lewis and Clark, in 1805,' 
crossed the Rocky mountains, uniil the pres- 
ent hour, we have been incessantly agitating the 
subject, and urging our title to tire territory in dis- 
pute. I requested the executive secretary of the 
Senate to hunt up all the volumes containing public 
documents on this subject. 1 am sorry that I omit- 
ted 10 count the numljer of these volumes; but I 
feel confident they exceeded twenty. Ever since I 
have occupied a seat in Congress, (which is now 
more than twenty years,) the American people, by 
their senators and representatives, have been con- 
stantly urging the settlement of this question, but 
urging it in vain. We were hi possession of the 
mouth of the Columbia before the late war; and this 
possession, of which Great Britain had deprived us 
by force, was restored to us after the peace under 
the treaty of Ghent. In an evil hour, under the 
treaty of 1818, we voluntariiy surrendered tol 
that power a joint occupation with ourselves of our I 
own territory. The British government is perfectly 
satisfied with this tfeaty; and whilst it remains in 
force, we may urge and comjilain until doomsday 
without effect. From the time when Governor 
Floyd of Virginia, who has for many years been 
gathered to his fathers, introduced his resolution in 
the other House, on the 10th December, 1821, rela- 
tive to the occupation of the Columbia river and ter- 
ritory of the United Sfetes adjacent thereto, the sub- 
ject has, in some form or other, been brought before 
each successive Congress. Since then, we have had 
numerous President's messages and reports of com- 
mittees, and other documents, in favor of asserting 
our title by some act of possession; but all without 
any successful result. 

But even if we had been sleeping over our rights 
for six and twenty years, I ask the senator, is this 
any reason why we should slumber over them twen- 
ty years longer.' Is it not rather a convincing ar- 
gument to urge us at last now to go to work in ear- 
nest, and repair the evils, consequent on our long de- 



I lay? Cut me effect of the argument of the senator 
will still be— "a little more sleep; a little moro slum- 
ber; a little more folding of the hands to sleep;" whilst 
Great Britain continues inthe actual possession of the 
country, and has evinced a fixed determination to 
hold it as long as possible. 

My lamented friend, the late senator from Mis- 
souri, (Dr. Linn,) who sat by my side in this cham- 
ber, for several years before his death, made the as- 
sertion of our claims to this territory the chief bu- 
siness of his useful and honorable life. He thought 
that, when Lord Ashburton came to the country, 
the propitious moment had at length arrived for the 
settlement of this long-agitated ancl dangerous ques- 
tion. His lordship was hailed as the minister of 
peace and as the harbinger of a new era of good 
feeling between the two nations. Mr. Webster 
himself proclaimed that this special minister was in- 
trusted with full power to settle all our questions in 
dispute with Great Britain. We all recollect with 
wliat enthusiasm his advent was hailed. Dr. Linn 
upon the advice of his friends, (myself among.st 
the number,) ceased to urge the Oregon question on 
this floor, as soon as the negotiation commenced, 
in the full and confident expectation that it would 
be finally settled by any treaty which might be con- 
cluded. I hope the Senate will pardon me for say- 
ing a few words here in reference to^my deceased 
friend. In him were combined the most opposite 
and the most admirable qualities of our nature, in 
more striking contrast than I have ever witnessed in 
any other man. Gentle as the lamb, and mild as 
the zephyr, he was yet brave as the lion. "He had 
a heart for pity, and a hand open as day for 
melting charity;" but yet "was like the mustering 
thunder when provoked." Human suffering al- 
ways drew from him the tear of sympathy; and his 
active benevolence never rested until he had at- 
tempted to relieve the sufferer. He was one of the 
ablest men who has held a seat in the Senate in my 
day, and yet he was so modest and unpretending 
that he never seemed sensible of his own ability, 
and would blush at thefaintestprai.se. If the first 
settlers who shall boldly establish themselves in Ore- 
gon under the ample folds of the American flag— not 
those who may "enter the territory prudentiy 
and silently" — do not call their first city after 
his name, they will deserve the brand of ingrat- 
I itude. I have never known a man — a stranger to 
my own blood — in the whole course of my life, to 
whom I was more ardently attached. 

In common with us all. Dr. Linn was finnly con- 
vinced that the Oregon que^ion would have been 
settled by the late treaty. There was then every 
reason confidently to anticipate such a result. Lord 
Ashburton himself proclaimed that he had been in- 
trusted with full powers to settle all the disputed 
questions; and, from the condition of England at that 
moment, no man could have doubted her desire to 
remove all causes of dissension between the two 
countries. Her annual revenue was insufficient for 
her annual expenditure; she had sufiered serious 
reverses in the East, where she was waging two ex- 
pensive and bloody wars; a large portion of her pop- 
ulation at home appeared to be rapidly approaching 
a state of open rebellion from misery and st;u-vation- 
and France, her ancient and powerful enemy, had 
indignantly refused to ratify the quintuule treaty 
granting her the right of search on the African coast. 
This, I repeat, was the propitious moment to settle 
all our difficulties; but it was not improved, and I 
fear it has passed away forever. Who could thea 



have anticipated that, tinder aH these favorable cir- 
cumstances, but a single question would be settled, 
and this the northeastern boundary? It was not in 
the confiding nature of Dr. Linn to anticipate such a 
catastrophe. Some of us, at least, can recollect with 
what astonishment and mortification we first learn- 
ed that the Oregon question had not been settled by 
the treaty. Dr. Linn instantly gave notice that he 
would press his bill for the organization and settle- 
ment of the territory; and this bill passed the Senate 
at the last session. Are then the United States again 
to strike their flag.' are all proceedings upon this sub- 
ject again to be arrested in the Senate, on the mere 
arrival of another minister from England? Although 
her subjects had been in the exclusive possession of 
the whole territory from the day when the Hudson 
Bay company first set foot upon it until 1842, yet 
Congress at once ceased to prosecute our claim on 
the arrival of Lord Ashburton. Should we pursue 
a similar course on the arrival of Mr. Pakenham, is 
it not morally certain that the new negotiation will 
produce similar results? This is not the best mode 
of treating with England. She ought not to expect 
any such concessions from us. If we desire to ob- 
tain justice from her or any other nation, we must 
assert our rights in a proper manner. If we do this, 
she will have little encouragement to hope for longer 
delay;if we do not, judging from her course in the 
Ashburton negotiation, there is not the least probabili- 
ty of the settlementof the question. We have already 
surrendered to her our ancient highland boundary 
for which our fathers fought; these highlands which 
overlook and command Q,uebec, the seat of her 
empire in North America. We have placed her in 
possession of the highland passes which lead into the 
very heart of our own country. We have yielded 
to her the very positions on our frontier, which the 
Duke of Wellington and a board of British officers 
deemed indispensable for the defence of her' North 
American possessions. She has obtained all this 
from our government; and what is worse than all, — 
what disgraces us more than all before the world — 
no, sir, I will not apply the term disgrace to my 
country, — Lord Ashbiirton had in his pocket Mitch- 
ell's map of 1753, taken from the private library of 
George the Third, which proved the justice of our 
claim. On that map was traced, Vjy the hand of the 
sovereign himself, the treaty line according to our 
claim; and the factwas thus conclusively established, 
that England was not entitled to a foot of the terri- 
tory in dispute. 

Mr. B. here read from a newspaper the following 
extracts from the speeches of Sir Robert Peel and 
Lord Brougham — the first delivered in the House of 
Commons on the 28th March, 1843, and the second 
in the House of Lords on the 7th April following: 

Sir Robert Peel. But there is still another map. Here, 
in this country — in the library of the late King — was depos- 
ited a map by Mitchell, of the date 1753. That map was in 
the possession of the late King; and it was also in possession 
of the noble lord; but he did not communicate its contents 
to Mr. Webster. [Hear, hear.] It is marked by a broad red 
line; and on that line is written "Boundary as described by 
our negotiator, Mr. Oswald;" and that line follows the claim 
of the United States. [Hear, hear.] That map was on an 
extended scale. It was in possession of the late King, who 
was particularly curious in relation to geographical inqui- 
ries. On that map, I repeat, is placed the boundary line — 
that claimed by the iJnited States — and on four dillerent 
places on that line, "Boundary as described by our negotia- 
tor, Mr. Oswald." 

Lord Brougham also spoke upon this question, 
and treated the idea with ridicule and scorn, that 
Lord Ashburton was bound to show this map to 
Mr. Webster. His lordship thinks tliat, from the 



handwriting along the red line on the face of the 
map, describing the American, and not the British 
claim, "it is the handwriting of George III him- 
self." And after slating that the library of George 
III, by the munificence of George IV, was given to 
the British Museum, he says: 

This map must have been there; but it is a curious cir- 
cumstance that it is not there now. [Laughter.] I suppose 
it must have been taken out of the British Museum for the 
purpose of being sent over to my noble friend in America; 
[hear, hear, and laughter;] and which, according to the new 
doctrines of diplomacy, he was bound to have taken over 
with him, to show that he had no case— that he had not a 
leg to stand upon. 

And again: 

But, somehow or otlier, that map, which entirely de- 
stroys our contentions, and gives all to the Americans, has 
been removed from the British Museum, and is now to be 
found at the Foreign Office. 

"The late King (says Ptobert Peel) was particu- 
larly curious in relation to geographical inquiries." 
No doubt he had received from Mr. Oswald himself 
(the British negotiator of the provisional treaty of 
peace) the information necessary to enable him to 
mark the boundary line between his remaining 
provinces in North America and the United States 
according to that treaty. Justly has Lord Brougham 
declared, that if this map had been produced, the 
British government would not have had a leg to 
stand upon. It would have entirely destroyed all 
contentions, and given all to the Americans. I shall 
not apply any epithets to such conduct. The sub- 
ject is too grave for the use of epithets. But this I 
shall say, that, at one moment during the northeast- 
ern boundary dispute, that government was ready to 
apply the match to the cannon, and go to war in de- 
fence of a claim which they themselves knew, under 
the hand of their late sovereign, was totally destitute 
of foundation. 

I shall repeat, without comment, what Lord Ash 
burton said in reference to the British title, during 
the negotiation. He stated that he was the friend 
of the United States — that he had endeavored to 
avert the late war with England; which was true, 
and was highly creditable to him. But, after all, 
with the map in his pocket, he declared, in his letter 
to Mr. Webster of the 21st June, 1842, as fol- 
lows : 

1 will only here add the most solemn assurance, which I 
would not lightly make, that, after a long and careful exam- 
ination of all the arguments and inferences, direct and cir- 
cumstantial, bearing on the whole of this truly difficult 
question, it is my settled conviction that it was the intention 
of the parties to the treaty of peace of 1783, however imper- 
fectly those intentions may have been executed, to leave to 
Great Britain, by their description of^oundaries, the whole 
of the waters of the river St. John. — Page 40. 

And yet, after all this, we are admonished by sen- 
ators to be again quiet and patient, as we were whilst 
the negotiations with Lord Ashburton were pending, 
and await the result. If we should continue to fol- 
low this advice, the question will never be settled. 

But, says the senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. 
Choate,] it would be disrespectful to the govern- 
ment of Great Britain to give the notice, immediate- 
ly after the arrival of their minister in this country. 
Disrespectful to give a notice expressly provided for 
by the terms of the treaty itself! Disrespectful 
when this notice will produce no sudden and abrupt 
termination of the treaty, but will leave it in force 
for another whole year! I asli, is not this period 
long enough to complete a negotiation which was 
commenced twenty-five years ago? My feelings may 
be less sensitive than those of other gentlemen; and 
this may be the reason why I cannot conceive ho^r 



the British government could, by possibility, con- 
sider the notice disrespectful. Their sensibility 
must be extreme to take offence at a measure which, 
by their own solemn agreement, we might have 
adopted at any time within the last sixteen years. 
If, however, ihey should take offence at our adop- 
tion of the very course pointed out by their own 
solenm treaty, let them, in Heaven's name, be of- 
fended. I siiall regret it; but much more shall I re- 
gret the long delay in the adjustment of this ques- 
tion, which will inevitably result from our refusal to 
give the notice. It will never be settled until 
we convince Great Britain that we are in earnest. 
She will proceed in extending and engrossing 
the trade of the territory so long as we shall consent 
to leave her in qaiet possession, patiently awaiting 
the results of a negotiation. The longer the delay, 
the more essentially will her interests be pron»oted. 

Here, sir, I might with propriety close my argu- 
ment, having already said all which appropriately 
belongs to the resolution under discussion; but I 
feel myself bound to examine some of the positions 
taken by the senator from Massachusetts. In the 
opinion of tliat senator, even if no treaty should be 
concluded by Mr. Packenham, it would be wise to 
continue the existing convention, unless circum- 
stances shall change. He believes that, "in the 
course of twenty years," an agricultural popula- 
tion from tlie United Stales would gradup.lly and 
peacefully spread itself over tlie Territory of Ore- 
gon — "the hunters of the Hudson Bay com- 
pany would all pass off to the desert, where their 
objects of pursuit were found, and the country would, 
without astruggle, be ours." England liad no inten- 
tion of colonizing Oregon, and the senator saw noth- 
ing in her policy which would incline her to inter- 
pose obstacles to this natural course of events 
"No doubt, if we provoked and made war upon her, 
she would do it; but if we would but enter the 
territory prudently and silently, with the plough- 
share and the pruning hook, he could not see the 
least probability that she -M^ould interfere to prevent 
us." If we should send hunters or trap]iers there 
to interfere with their monopoly, the Hudson Bay 
company might take offence. "But shovdd we go 
there bonaftde as farmers, wishing only to till the 
soil, he had no doubt that, in twenty years, that 
great hunting corporation, like oneof Ossian'sghosts 
would roll itself off to the north and northeast, and 
seek that great desert which was adapted to its pur- 
suits and objects." England had no intention of 
colonizing tlie territory; and, to use his own strong 
figure, "no more idea of establishing an agricultu- 
ral colony in Oregon than she had of ploughing and 
planting the dome of St. Paul's." 

I shall briefly examine these positkms of the 
honorable senator; and when subjected to the scru- 
tiny of sober reason, to what do they amount' What 
is their intrinsic value.' They are poetry, and 
nothing but poetry — expressed, to be sure, with 
that splendor of diction for which the senator is so 
highly distinguished, and v.'hich, in itself, possesses 
so much of poetic beauty. But, aficr all, they are 
mere poety. What, in fact, has the senator recom- 
mended? A policy which will not stand the test of 
the slightest examination — a policy to which such a 
corporation as the British Hudson Bay company 
will never submit. We are to steal into Oregon 
quietly, with the ploughshare and the pruning hofik; 
and then, notwithstanding by our agricultural set- 
tlements we shall most effectually destroy and 
drive away all the game vvliich forma the very sub- 



stance of that company's we^th, the company will 
take no offence, and interpose neither resistance nor 
obstacle to our proceeding ! Not at all; we may 
progr«?ss peacefully aud prudently, until we .shall 
have converted all their hunting grounds into fruit- 
ful fields; and then that ancient and powerful monop- 
oly will reliie like one of Ossian's ghosts, roUing 
itself off into its kindred deserts of the North ! It 
is true that this mercenary and blood-stained corpo- 
ration has already murdered between four and five 
hundred of our citizens, who ventured into Oregon 
for the purpose merely of sharing with them the 
hunting aud trapping of the beaver; yet they wdl 
not take the least umbrage, if we shall enter the 
territory Vvith plough and pruning hook, in such 
numbers as to destroy their hunting and trapping 
altogether! These unfortunate men did but attempt 
to hunt the beaver, as they had a right to do under 
the treaty of joint occupation, and it cost them 
their lives; but yet, if all the beaver and other game 
shall be driven from the country by our settlements, 
this will all be very well, and the company will 
never raise a finger to prevent its own destruction! 
Should this be its course, the Hudson Bay company 
will prove itself to be the most disinterested and 
magnanimous moiiopoly of which I have ever 
heard or read in all my life. Trading companies 
are almost universally governed by an exclusive 
view to their own interest. To suppose for a mo- 
ment that this vast trading association, with all its 
hunters and dependants, will gradually retire, with 
their faces, I presume, to our advancing settlements, 
is one of the most extraordinary notions that I • 
have heard in this chamber. And this is the mode 
whereby the senator will preserve the peace between 
the tv/o nations, and at the same time acquire pos- 
session of the territory ! 

Now, Mr. President, I assert that Great Britain 
has never manifested a more determined purpose, in 
the whole course of her eventful history, than to 
hold and retain the northern bank of the Columbia 
river, with a harbor at its mouth. Why, sir, she 
already affects t» consider the northern bank of this 
river as her own, whilst she graciously concedes the 
southern as belonging to the United States. In Ore- 
gon, these banks of "the stream are familiarly and 
currently spoken of as "the British side" and "the 
American side." Let any of our citizens attempt 
to make a stittlement north of that river, and we 
shall soon learn his fate; we shall soon hear, if noth- 
ing worse, tliat he has been driven away. I be- 
lieve that but one American settlement has ever been 
attempted north of the Columbia; and this is a small 
Catholic establishment which nobody would ever 
think of disturbing. In this course, Great Britain 
displays her decp'policy and her settled purpose. 
Thrice has she offered to divide the territory, and 
make the Columbia the line between the two na- 
tions, and thrice has her offer been rejected. It is 
now evidently her design to make the possession of 
the territory conform to her proposition for its di- 
vision, yielding the southern bank to us, and re- 
taining the northern for herself; and every moment 
tliat we submit to this allotment will but serve to 
strengthen her claim. . 

Even when Astoria was restored to the United 
States, in October, 1818, imder the treaty of Ghent, 
Great Britain, in opposition to this her own .solemn 
act. protested that she had the title to the territory, 
though it does not apjiear that this protest was ever, 
in point of fact, communicated to our government. 
During the progress of the negotiation in 1818, 



which preceded the existing treaty of joint occu- 
pancy, our government proposed that the parallel of 
forty-nine degrees of north latitude, which is the boun- 
dary of the two countries east of thfe Rocky moun- 
tains, should be extended as their boundary west to 
the Pacific ocean. What was the answer? "The 
British negotiators did not make any formal proposi- 
tion for a boundary, but intimated that the river it- 
self was the most convenient that could be adopted; 
and that they would not agree to any that did not 
give them the harbor at the mouth of the river in 
common with the United States." Has Great Brit- 
ain ever departed from this declaration? No, sir, 
never. On the contrary, the assertion of her claim 
has become stronger and stronger with each suc- 
C€eding year. 

This subject was again discussed in the negotia- 
tion of 1824. Mr. Rush again asserted our title 
to the 49th degree of latitude, in strong and decided 
terms; but it was as strongly and decidedly opposed 
by the British plenipotentiaries. All that they would 
consent to do was to run the 49th parallel of "latitude 
west, from the summit of the Rocky mountains, 
until it should strike the northern branch of the Co- 
lumbia, and from thence down the course of the 
river to the ocean. This proposition was prompt- 
ly rejected by Mr. Rush; and in writing home to 
the Department of State, he stated that they had de- 
clared more than once, at the closing hours of the 
negotiation, "that the boundary marked out in their 
men jrroposal, teas one from ivhich the government of 
the United Stales 7nusl not expect Great Britain to de- 
■ part.''^ 

Again, for the third time, previously to the treaty 
of 1827, we repeated our offer to divide the country 
•witli Great Britain by the forty-ninth parallel of lat- 
itude; and she again rejected our proposition; and 
again offered to make the river the boundary, the navi- 
gation of it to remain forever free and common to 
both nations. In making this offer, lier negotia- 
tors declared that there could be no reciprocal with- 
drawal from actual occupation, as there was not, 
and never had been, a single American citizen set- 
tled north of the Columbia. In refusing our prop- 
osition, they used laiiguage still stronger than they 
had ever done before; again declaring that it must 
not be expected they would ever relinquish the claim 
which they had asserted. 

Thus it appears that, in 1818, we offered to es- 
tablish the 49th degree as our northern boundary; in 
1824, we repeated the offer; and in 1827, we again 
repeated the same proposal; but on each occasion, 
it was absolutely refused. Our minister, in obedi- 
ence to his instructions, after this last refusal, sol- 
emnly declared to the British plenipotentiaries that 
the A.merican Government would never thereafter 
hold itself bound to agree to the hne which had 
been proposed and rejected; but would consider itself 
at liberty to contend for the full extent of the claims 
of the United States. The British plenipotentiaries 
made a similar declaration, in terms equally strong, 
that they would never consider the British govern- 
ment bound to agree to the line which they had pro- 
posed; and these mutual protests were recorded in 
due form on the protocols of the negotiation. Thus, 
tliank Heaven, we are now relieved from the embar- 
rassing position in which we had placed ourselves, 
and are no longer trammeled by our former proposi- 
tions. We shall hereafter assert our claim to the 
full extent of our right. We shall no longer limit 
ourselves to the 49th parallel of latitude; but shall 
insist upon extending our boundary north to 5i'^ 



40'; which is the treaty line between Russia and the 

United States. 

To suppose that Great Britain, after these solemn 
assertions of her title, and these strong declarations 
that she would never abandon it, will voluntarily 
and quietly retire from the possession of the whole 
northwest coast of America; that she will surrender 
the straits of De Fuca, the only good harbor on that 
coast, between the 49th degree of latitude and Saint 
Francisco, in latitude 37° 48'; that she will yield up 
this entire territory, the possession of which can 
alone secure to her the command of the north Pacific 
and tlie trade of eastern Asia, and, through this 
trade, her influence over China; that she will aban- 
don her valuable fur trade, and all this fertile and 
salubrious country, and fly to the northern deserts, 
before the advance of our farmers, with their ]Mough- 
shares and pruning hooks, whom we are afraid to 
cover with tlae protection of our flag, lest this might 
give her offence; — to suppose all this, is surely to 
imagine the most impossible of all impossibilities. 
From the day that Sir Alexander McKenzie first 
set his foot upon the territory, until this very day, 
the proceedings of Great Britain in regard to the re- 
gion west of the Rocky mountains have been uni- 
form and consistent. She has never faltered for a 
single moment in her course. She has proclaimed 
before the world her right to .settle and colonize it; 
and from this claim she has never varied or depart- 
ed: and yet we are now to be told that she will, all of 
a sudden, change her policy, and retire before th", 
American squatters who may find their way into 
Oregon without law, without a government, and 
without protection! 

And all this, too, in the very face of what occur- 
red during the negotiation of the Ashburton treaty. 
Our northwestern boundarj' not only forms no part 
of this treaty; but that iirjportant subject is not even 
alluded to throughout the whole correspondence. 
We had a correspondence between Lord Ashburton 
and Mr. Webster on the Creole question, on the 
Caroline question, on the- doctrine of impressment, 
and on the right of search; but it appears that this 
Oregon question was found to be so utterly mcapa- 
ble of adjustment, that even the attempt was entirely 
abandoned. We are told by the President, in his 
message transmitting the treaty, that, "after sundry 
informal commimications with the British minister 
upon the subject of the claims of the two countries 
to territory west of the Rocky mountains, so little 
probability v.-as found to exist of coming to any 
agreement on that subject at present, that it was not 
thought expedient to make it one of the subjects of 
formal negotiation, to be entered vipon between this 
government and the British minister, as part of his 
duties undei^liis special mission." Thus it appears 
that, at so late a period as the year 1842, the claims 
of Great Britain were found to be so utterly irrecon- 
cilable with the just rights of the United States, that 
all attempts to adjust the question by treaty were 
abandoned in despair. 

Had 1 been the negotiator of the late treaty, I 
should have endeavored to melt the iron heart of his 
lordship. 1 would have said to him: "You have 
obt.ained all that your heart can desire in the adjust- 
ment of the northeastern boundary; will you, then, 
return home without settling any of the other im- 
jMrtant questions in dispute? Nay, more, will you 
leave even the boujidary question but half settled? 
At least, let us adjast the whole question of boun- 
dary — that in the northwest as well as the northeast. 
Permanent peace and friendship between the two 



nations is the ardent desire of us both; why, then, 
leave a queetion unsetlled which ia of much g;reater 
importance, and consequently of a much more dan- 
gerous character, than the northeastern boundary — 
a question which contains within itself elements tliat 
may produce war at no distant period. This is tlie 
propitious moment for ending all our difficulties, 
and commencinj^ a new era of good feeling between 
the two countries. Let us not suffer it to escape un- 
improved — to pass away, it may be, never to re- 
turn." 

What the nature of these "informal commu- 
nications with the British minister" may have been 
in relation to the Oregon Territory, will probably 
never be known to the people of thi." country. No 
protocol — no record — was made of the conferences 
of the negotiators. Their tracks were traced upon 
tlie sand, and the returning tide has effaced them 
forever. We shall never know what pa.sscd be- 
tween them on this subject, xmless Lord Ashbur- 
ton's despatches to his own government shall be 
published, which is not at all probable. 1 have no 
doubt they contain a full record of the conferences; 
because it is the duty of every responsible foreign 
minister to communicate to his own government a 
perfect history of all that occurs throughout his 
negotiations. I should be exceedingly curious to 
know what were these extravagant pi-ctensions of 
the British government in regard to Oregon, which 
rendered all negotiation on the subject impossible. 

It is more than probable that Mr. Webster again 
offered to Lord Ashburton to establish the forty- 
ninth parallel of latitude as the boundary between 
the two nations west of the Rocky mountains. I 
infer this from the fact tliat the senator from Massa- 
chusetts, [Mr. Choatf.,] in i-eply to the senator 
from Missouri, [Mr. Bfnton,] at the last session 
of Congress, had as'sured him that Mr. Webster 
had never "offered a boundary line s^uth of the 
parallel of forty-nine;" that he [Mr. Ciioate] "was 
authorized and desired to declare tliat, in no com- 
munication, fonnal or informal, was such an offer 
made, and none such was ever meditated." When 
it had thus been authoritatively and solemnly de- 
clared that Mr. Webster had never offered to es- 
tablish any boundary south of forty-nine, (which I 
was glad to hear,) it appears to me to be a legiti- 
mate inference that he had offered to establish that 
parallel as the boundary. The senator from Massa- 
chusetts can, however, doubtless explain w'hat is 
llie true state of the case. 

Here Mr. Choate asked whether Mr. Buchanan 
desired him to explain now, or wait till the senator 
should have concluded his remarks. 

Mr. Buchanan preferring the latter course, Mr. 
Choate promised to make the explanation, and re- 
tained his seat. 

But the honorable gentleman has assured the Sen- 
ate that Great Britain does not intend to colonize in 
Oregon — no, no more than she intends to colonize the 
dome of St. Paul's. And what are the arguments 
by which he has attempted to support this position? 
Why, the senator has carefully examined all the 
British projects for colonization since the year 1826; 
and he finds that whilst they have been establishing 
colonies every where else around the globe, not a 
word has ever been hiiited in relation to a colony in 
Oregon. And does not the senator perceive how- 
very easy it is to answer such an argument.' Great 
Britain could not have colonized in Oregon without 
violating her own plighted faith to the Hudson Bay 
company. In December, 1821, she had leased to 



that company the whole of this territory for the 
term of twenty-one years, and she could not have 
set her foot upon it without infringiiig their charter- 
ed rights. 

What, sir! Great Briuiin not colonize.' She must 
colonize. This is the indispensable condition of her 
existence. She has utterly failed to impress upon 
other nations her theoretical doctrines of free trade; 
whilst she excludes from her own ports every for- 
eign article which she can herself produce 'in suffi- 
cient quantities to supply the demand of her ovjn 
peof)le. The nations of the continent of Europe are 
now all manufacturing for themselves. Their mar- 
kets are nearly all closed against her. She now en- 
joys nothing like free trade with any of these natrons. 
We are now, I believe, the only civilized people 
on earth where free trade doctrines prevail to any 
great extent. The Zoll-Verein, or commercial 
league of Germany, have recently adopted a tariff 
of duties which must effectually exclude her manu- 
factures from their ports. The whole world are fast 
adopting Bonaparte's continental system against her; 
and all the nations of Christendom seem determined 
to encourage ttieir own labor and to manufacture for 
themselves. Under these circumstances. Great 
Britain, in her own defence, must colonize. She 
must provide- a market of her own for lier manufac- 
tures; or inevitable destruction awaits them. 
Wherever she can acquire earth" enough to plant a 
man who who will purchase and consume her pro- 
ductions, — her cotton, her woollen, and her iron 
fabrics, — there she must acquire it for the purpose of 
extending her home market. She cannot exist with- 
out coMnization. This is the very law of her po- 
litical bein?. To imagine, therefore, that she is 
about to abandon the claim to colonize Oregon 
without a struggle, is to imagine what" seems to me 
to be very strange, not to say impossible. It is very 
true that she has not yet, on her own account, com- 
menced the process of colonization in that region; 
but judging from the most authentic facts, we can no 
longer doubt what are her intentions. 

I have already stated that, in 1821, Great Britain 
had leased to the Hudson Bay company the Ter- 
ritory of Oregon for the term of twenty-one years. 
On tiie .30th May, 1838, this lease was extended by 
a new lease for another period of twenty-one years 
from its date. The existence of this last grant was 
entirely unknown to ftie until within the last few 
days. When I mentioned the subject in conversa- 
tion to the senator from Massachusetts, he informed 
me that he had seen the new lease, and kindly offer- 
ed to procure it for me, remarking at the same time 
that he had intended to mention the fact in the course 
of his remarks; but had omitted to do so in the 
hurry of speaking! That such was his intention I 
have not the least reason to doubt. 

The corrc-^pondence of the com]iany's agents with 
the British government immediately previous to the 
hist lease, is in the highest degree wortliy of the at- 
tention and solemn consideration of the Senate. 

In this correspondence with Lord Glenelg, they 
recounted all that the company had done for the 
British government as a rea.son why their license 
ought to'be extended. They boast of having s.uc- 
ceeded, "after a severe and expensive competition, 
in establishing these settlement?, and obtaining a de- 
cided superiority, if not an exclusive enjoyment of 
the trade — the Americans having almost withdrawn 
from the coast." They inform his lordship that 
"the company now occupy the country between 
the Rocky mountains and the Pacific by six perma- 



s 



nent establishments on tlie coast, sixteen in the in- 
terior country, besides several migratory and hunt- 
ing parties; and they maintain a marine of six 
armed vessels — one of them a steam vessel — on the 
coast." At each of these estabhshments, I believe, 
indeed I may say that we know, they have erected 
stockade forts; although if this fact be mentioned in 
the correspondence, it has escaped my observation. 
In the neighborhood of Fort Vancouver, which is 
their pi-incipal establishment, they state the fact, 
that "they have large pasture and grain farms, af- 
fording most abundantly every species of agricul- 
tural produce, and maintaining large herds of stock 
of every description; these have been gradually es- 
ta.blished; and it is the intention of the comjiany 
still further, not only to augment and increase them, 
to establish an export trade in wool, tallow, hides, 
and other agricultural produce, but to encourage the 
settlement of their retired servants and other emi- 
grants under their protection." They represent 
"the soil, climate, and other circumstances of the 
country" to be "as much, if not more, adapted to 
agricultural pursuits than any other spot in Ameri- 
ca." And they express the confident hope that, 
"with care and protection, the British dominion may 
not only be ]yresen'ed in this country, which it lias been 
so much the wish cf Russia and Jlmerica to occnjnj to the 
txchision of British subjects, but British interest and 
British influence 7)tay be maintained as paramountin 
this interesting part of the const of the Pacific.'''' 

The extracts which I have just read are from the 
letter of J. Pelly, esq. governor of the Hudson Bay 
company, to Lord Glenelg, the Eriiish colonial Sec- 
retary of State, dated at London on the Iftth Feb- 
ruary, 1837, applying for an extension of their 
lease Among the papers submitted to the British 
government upon this occasion, is a letter from 
George Simpson, esq. to Governor Pelly, dated at 
London on the 1st Februaiy, 1837. Mr. Simpson 
is the superintendent of the company's affairs in 
North America; a]id, from his knowledge of the 
country, any information which he communicates 
is entitled to the highest consideration. 

1 beg the Senate to ponder well what he says in 
this letter in regard to that portion of Oregon be- 
tv,-een the Columbia river and the 49th degree of 
north latitude, which the British government have 
so often expressed their determination to hold; and 
then ask themselves whether they can, for a m»o- 
ment, suppose that Great Britain will vohmtarily 
recede from its possession before our agricultural 
population: 

The country (says Mr. Simpson) situated between the 
northern bank of tlie Columbia river, which empties itself 
into the racifle, in latitude 4() dev;. 20 min., and the souihern 
bank of Frazer's river, ^vhich enipti^ itself into the Gulf of 
Georgia, in latitude 49 deg., is remarkable for the salubrity 
of its climate and excellence of its soil, and possesses, with- 
in the straits of De Fuca, some of the finest harbors in th.? 
world, being protected from the weight of the Pacific by 
Vancouver's and other islands. To the southward of the 
straits of De Fuca, situated in latitude 48 deg. .37 min., there 
is no good harbor nearer than the bay of St. Francisco, in 
latitude o7 Ceg. 48 min., as llie broad, shifting bar ofi' the 
mouth of the ('olumbia, and the tortuous channel through 
it, render the entrance of that river a very dangerous navi- 
gation even to vessels of small draft of water. 

The possession of tliat country to Great Britain may be- 
come an object of very great importance, and we are 
strengthening their claim to it (independent of the claim of 
prior discovery and occupation for the pui-pose of Indian 
trade) by forming the nucleus of a colony through the es- 
tablishment of famis, and the settlemeni of some of our re- 
tiring officers and servants as agriculluiists. 

These communications, from the governor and 
superintendent of the Hudson Bay company, urging 



an extension of their license or lease, were favora- 
bly received by the British government; but Lord 
Glenelg informs them, in his reply, that the gOT- 
eri'fment must reserve to itself, in the new grant, the 
privilege of establishing colonies on ajiy portion of 
the territory. To use his own language, "it will be 
indispensable to introduce into the new charter such 
conditions as may enaljle her Majesty to grant, /or 
the purpose of settlement or colonization, any of the 
lands comprised in it." This'was the express con- 
dition of the grant; and, upon these terms, the com- 
pany accepted its new license. The reservation of 
the right to colonize is written in the clearest and 
strongest terms upon the face of this charter. 'Need 
I add another word for the purpose of proving that 
the British government do not intend to abandon 
this country, but that it is their purpose to establish 
colonies in it? This is an important fact, which 
proves beyond a doubt that we must speedily mani- 
fest a determination to assert our rights, and make 
a stand for the portion of this territory north of the 
Columbia, in a difierent manner from that proposed 
by the senator from Massachusetts, or consent to 
abandon it forever. 

But the senator from Massachusetts has informed 
us that the present treaty of joint occupation may 
continue for an indefinite ])€riod — "ten thousand 
years" — without being in the least degree prejudicial 
to our title; but that the moment we shall give no- 
tice, and break up the convention, the adverse pos- 
session of Great Britain will then commence, and 
her claims will grow stronger with each succeeding 
year. I admit, in theory, the soundness of the prop- 
osition, that whilst the treaty continues, British pos- 
session cannot injure our title. But does England 
admit the correctness'of this our interpretation of the 
treaty.' Far, very far from it. Their construction 
of this treaty, and their conduct under its provis- 
ions, have always been widely different from our 
own. We have understood it in one manner, and 
they in another entirely opposite. 

Previous to the treaty of 1818, Messrs. Gallatin 
and Rush, in their correspondence with the plenipo- 
tentiaries of the British government, proposed that 
the country on the northwest coast of America 
claimed by either party should "6c opened for the pur- 
poses of trade to the inhabitants of both countries." 
Now, if these words "for the purposes of trade" had 
been inserted in the treaty itself, no room would 
have been left for British cavil; but unfortunately 
tliey were omitted; and the treaty declares generally 
that the country shall be open to the vessels, citi- 
zens, and subjects of the two powers, without defi- 
ning or limiting the purposes for which it shall be 
opened. And how have the British government in- 
terpreted this treaty.' Precisely as though it had 
been expressly agreed that both parties, instead of 
being confined to hunting, fishing, and trading with 
the natives, were left at perfect liberty tp settle and 
colonize any portions of the country they might 
think proper. Immediately after its conclusion, the 
British govei-nment fell back upon their Nootka- 
sound convention of 1790 with Spain; and, un- 
der it, (most unjustly, it is true,) claimed the 
right not only for themselves, but for all the na- 
tions of (he earth, to colonize the northv.est 
coast of America at pleasure. "Great Britain," 
say her plenipotentiaries, "claims no exclusive sov- 
ereignty over any portion of that territory." What, 
then, does she claim.' To use the language of these 
plenipotentiaries in 1824, "they consider the unoccu- 
pied parts of America just as much open as heretofore 



to colonization by Great Britain, as well as by other 
European powers, ao;reeably to the [Nootka-aound] 
convention of 1790, between the British and Spanisli 
governments, and that tlie United States would have 
no right whatever to take umbrage at the cstabhsh- 
ment of new colonies from Europe in any such parts 
of the American continent." And they felt them- 
selves more imperatively bound to make this dec- 
laration, as the claim of the American minister 
"respecting the territory watered l.)y tlie river Co- 
lumbia and its tributary streams, besides being es- 
sentially objectionable in itsgenenil bearing, had the 
effect cf inttrfering directly with the actual' i-igiits of 
Greai Bntain, derived from tise, occupancy cJiJ settle- 
ment.''^ 

Thus, sir, you perceive that the British govern- 
ment openly and boldly, twenty years ago, notwith- 
standing the existing treaty, claimed tlie right to 
settle and colonize the country as though it were en- 
tirely without an owner; and, if tiiis claim had been 
well founded, then it would follow irresistibly that 
they have a right to retain the possession of the 
colonies which they had a right to establish. It is 
upon this principle that they speak of the actual 
rights which they had acquired so long ago as lb24, 
by "use, occupancy and settlement." What, then, 
becomes of the senator's ai-gumenl, that the present 
treaty may continue for an indefinite period, with- 
out being prejudicial to our title.' I admit that it is an 
ai-gument true and just in theory, but the opposite 
party, so far from admitting its force, entirely repels 
It. Under their interpretation of the treaty, they claim 
the right to plant colonies; and if this right existed, 
it could not be said that Great Britain would ac- 
quire no title to the colonies which she had cstab 
lished. It is true, tliat under any fair and just con- 
struction of the existing treaty, she has no right to 
colonize the country; but she claims this right. She 
insists upon it; and, in the face of all our protesta- 
tions, she has gone on, through the agency of the 
Hudson Bay company, to colonize to a considerable 
extent. 

And what has been our miserable policy in rcturnr 
We had a clear right to re-establish our ancient fort 
at the mouth of the Columbia ; but this might 
violate the treaty, and oiTend England; and although 
she has erected some thirty forts within the territory, 
we thought it best to abstain. It waa proposed to 
establish five military posts on the way to Oregon, 
for the purpose of protecting and facilitating the 
passage of otjr settlers over the Rocky mountains; 
but no; this must not be done; it would be bad 
feiith; and this, although England, through the 
agency of the Hudson Bay company, has been ma- 
king settlements all over tlie country. Whenever 
we propose to do anything for the purpose of meet- 
ing and countervailing her advances, it is decried 
as a violation of the treaty; and now, at the last 
moment, the same doctrine is not only held, but, ac- 
cording to some senators, it is deemed wholly inex- 
pedient for us to settle Oregon; and, aS a necessary 
consequence, I suppose we should permit Great 
Britain to retain her possession, without a struggle. 
We liave been sleepmg over our just rights; whilst 
she has been pushing her unjust claims with the ut- 
most energy. It is a strange spectacle to witness 
how we are forever holding back, for fear of viola- 
ting the treaty; whilst England is rushing forward to 
obteiin and to keep the country. She has establish- 
ed a government there; she has commissioned jus- 
tices of the peace; she has erected civil tribunals; 
she has extended the juiisdiction of her laws over 



the whole territory; she has established forts; she has 
built ships; erected mills; commenced permanent set- 
tlements, and cultivated extensive farms; and, during 
this whole period, has openly proclaimed her right to 
do all this, notwithstanding the treaty. And yet, al- 
though we have witnessed all these things, we must 
not move a step, or even lift our hand, because it 
would be a violation of the treaty! They consider the 
country as open to settlement; and in 1824, refused 
to accept our proposition to make the 49ih degree 
of latitude the boundary; because this would con- 
flict with their actual rights derived from use, 
occupation and settlement; whilst we have carefully 
refrained from performing any act whatever to en- 
courage the settlement of the country. Her claim 
to it rests upon settlement and colonization; whilst 
Congress refuses altogether to settle or to colonize, 
lost this might violate the very treaty under which 
she has been all the time acting. 

In the face of these claims so boldly asserted by 
Great Britain, it has appeared to me wonderful that 
the treaty of joint occupation should have been con- 
tinued in 1827. In the conferences previous to this 
treaty of 1827, the British plenipotentiaries made a 
still bolder declaration than tliey had ever done be- 
fore; — whilst they admit, in express terms, our equal 
right with themselves to settle the country — a right 
which we have refrained from exercising notwith- 
standing this admission, lest, forsooth, it might vio- 
late the treaty. They inform us of the numerous 
settlements and trading posts establislied by the sub- 
jects of Great Britain within the Territory; and, as 
if to taunt us with our want of energy, they say that 
in the whole territory, the citizens of the United 
States have not a single settlement or trading post. 
They again referred to their right to settle and colo- 
nize under the convention of Nootka Sound, and say- 
that this right has been peaceably exercised ever 
since the date of that convention, for a period of 
nearly forty years. "Under that convehtion," say 
they, "valuable British interests have grown up in 
those countries. It is fully admitted that the United 
Stales possess the same rights, althcv.gh they have been ex- 
erciscd by Hum only in a single instance, and have not, 
since the year 181.3, been exercised at all. But beyond, 
these rights, they possess none." And yet wc have 
been ever since deliberating in cold debate, whether 
we could make settlements in Oregon without vio- 
lating the treaty and giving offence to Great Britain! 

They inform us further, that "to the interests and 
establishments which British industry and enterprise 
have created, Great Britain owes protection. That 
protection will be given, both as regards settlement 
and freedom of trade and navigation, with every in- 
tention not to infringe the co-ordinate rights of the 
United States." Thus, sir, you perceive that Great 
Britain rests her claims to tlie country solely upon 
the exercise of the assumed right to settle and 
colonize it, and her duty to afford protection 
to the establishments which have been made by 
British subjects under this claim. And yet, in tlie 
face of all this, senators gravely express serious 
doubts whether we can, in "like manner, send our 
people to Oregon and afford them the protection of 
a government and laws, without a violation of the 
treaty! I think I have proved conclusively that the 
senator from Massachusetts is entirely mistaken if 
he supposes that England will ever admit that her 
possession, during the continuance of the treaty of 
joint occupation, would have no effect in strengtlien- 
ing her title to the territory in dispute. She haa 
maintained Uie contrary doctrine on all occasion*, 



10 



and in all forms, as if she intended a solemn noti- 
fication to us, and to the whole world, that she would 
hold on to her alleged right of possession, and never 
consent to abandon it. 

I am glad to say that I now approacli the last 
point of my argument. The senator from Massachu- 
setts [Mr. Choate] has contended that as certainly 
as we give the notice to annul the existing conven- 
tion, so certainly is war inevitable at the end of the 
year, unless a treaty should, in the mean time be 
concluded; and he would have us at once begin 
to prepare for war. I suppose the senator means 
that we ought now to be raising armies, embodying 
western volunteers, and sending our sharp shooters 
across the mountains; and he thinks it not impossi- 
ble that Great Britain, in anticipation of the event, 
may now be collecting cannon at the Sandwich 
Islands to fortify the mouth of the Columbia. Yes, 
sir, war is inevitable! Now I am most firmly con- 
vinced that, so far from all this, the danger of war 
is to be found in pursuing the opposite course, and 
refusing to giye the notice proposed. What can any 
reasonable man expect but war, if we permit our 
people to pass into Oregon by thousands annually, 
in the face of a great hunting corporation, like the 
Hudson Bay company, without either the protec- 
tion or restraint of laws? This company are in pos- 
session of tlie whole region, and have erected forti- 
fications in every part of it. The danger of war re- 
sults from a sudden outbreak, under such circum- 
stances. The two governments have no disposi- 
tion to go to war with each other; they are not so 
mad as to desire it; but they may be suddenly 
forced into hostilities by the cupidity and rash vio- j 
Icnce of these people, thrown together under cir- ] 
cumstances so inauspicious to peace. To prevent 
this, our obvious course of policy is to send over 
the mountains a civil government — to send our laws j 
• — to send the shield and protection of our sove- 
reignty to our countrymen there, and the wholesome 
restraints necessary to prevent tliem from avenging 
their wrongs by their own right arm. This is the j 
course which prudence dictates to prevent those 
sudden and dangerous outbreaks, which must other- ' 
■wise be inevitable. The danger lies here. If you ! 
leave them to themselves, the first crack of the rifle j 
lawlessly used, may be the signal of a general war 1 
throughout Christendom. Nothing else can produce i 
■war; and this is the reason why I am so anxious for ' 
the passage of a bill which will carry our laws into { 
Oregon. Such a bill will be the messenger of peace, ' 
and not the torch of discord. My voice is not for ! 
war. My desire — my earnest desire is for peace; | 
and I sincerely believe that the course which we, on i 
this side of the house, are anxious to pursue, is 
the only one to insure peace, and, at the same time, 
to preserve the honor of both nations. 

The senator from New Jersey [Mr. Miller] be- 
lieves that an hundred years must roll round before 
the valley of the Mississippi will have a population 
equal in density to that of some of the older States 
of the Union; and that for fifty years at least our peo- 
ple should not pass beyond their present limits. 
And in this connexion, he has introduced the Texas 
question. In regard to that question, all I have now 
to say is, "that sufficient unto the day is the evil 
tliereof." I have no opinion to express at this time 
on the subject. But this I believe: Providence has 
given to the American people a great and glorious 
piission to perform, even that of extending the bless- 
ings of Christianity and of civil and religious liber- 
ty over the whole North American continent. 



Within less than fifty years from this moment, 
there will exist one hundred millions of free Ameri- 
cans between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. 
This will be a glorious spectacle to behold; — the 
distant contemplation of it warms and expands the 
bosom. The honorable senator seems to suppose 
that it is impossible to love our country with the 
same ardor, when its limits are so widely extended. 
I cannot agree with him in this opinion. I believe 
an American citizen will, if possible, more ardently 
love his country, and be more proud of its power 
and its glory, when it shall be stretched out from 
sea to sea, than when it was confined to a narrow 
strip between the Atlantic and the Alleghanies. I 
believe that the system of liberty, of law, and of 
social order which we now enjoy, is destined to be 
the inheritance of the North American continent. 
For this reason it is, that the Almighty has im- 
planted in the very nature of our people that spirit 
of progress, and that desire to roam abroad and seek 
new homes and new fields of enterprise, which char- 
acterizes them above all other nations, ancient or 
modern, which have ever existed. This spirit can- 
not be repressed. It is idle to talk of it. You might 
as well attempt to arrest the stars in their courses 
through heaven. The same Divine power has 
given impulse to both. What, sir! prevent the 
American people from crossing the Rocky moun- 
tains? You might as well command Niagara not to 
flow. We must fulfil our destiny. The question 
presented by the senator from New Jersey is, wheth- 
er we shall vainly attempt to interpose obstacles to 
our own progress, and passively yield up the exer- 
cise of our rights beyond the mountains on the con- 
sideration that is impolitic for us ever to colonize 
Oregon. To such a ciuestion I shall give no answer. 
But, says he, it will be expensive to the treasury to 
extend to Oregon a territorial government. No mat- 
ter what may be the expense, the thing will eventu- 
ally be done; and it cannot be prevented, though it 
may be delayed for a season. 

But again: Oregon, says the senator from New 
Jersey, can never become a State of this Union. 
God only knows. I cannot see far enough into Uie 
future to form a decided opinion. This, however, 
I do know; that the extension of our Union thus far 
has not weakened its strength; on the contrary, this 
very extension has bound us together by still 
stronger bonds of mutual interest and mutual de- 
pendence. Our internal commerce lias grov/n to be 
worth ten times all our foreign trade. We shall 
soon become a world within ourselves. Although 
our people are widely scattered, all parts of the 
Union must know and feel how dependent each is 
upon the other. Thus the people of the vast valley 
of the Mississi])pi are dependent upon the northern 
Atlantic States for a naval power necessary to keep 
the mouth of the Mississippi open, through which 
their surplus produce must seek a market. In like 
manner, the commercial marine of the EasterH States 
is dependent upon the South and the West for the 
very productions, the transportation of which all 
over the eartli affords it employment. Besides, the 
Southern and Southwestern States are protected by 
the strength of the Union from the invasion of that 
fanatical spirit which would excite a servile war, 
and cover their fair land with blood. This mutual 
dependence of all the parts upon the whole, is our 
aggregate strength. I say, then, let us go on whith- 
ersoever our destiny may lead us. I entertain no 
fears for the consequences, even should Oregon be- 
come a State. I do not pretend to predict whether 



11 



it ever will or not; bat if, in a manly and temper- 
ate tone, we adhere to our rights, we shall at least 
spread over hermountainn and valleys a population 
iaentified with ourselves in religion, liberty and law. 
We shall at least bestow upon them the blessing of 
our own free institutions. They will be kindred s()irit.s 
of our own; and I feel no apprehension that they 
will ever excite the Indians of Oregon to att;ick our 
remote and defenceless frontiers. They and their 
fathers have sufRrcd too severely from such a 
policy on the part of the British government to per- 
mit them to pursue a similar policy. They will at 
least be ffood neighbors. 

Has it never occurred to the senator from Mas- 
sachusetts how inconsistent his arguments arc with 
each other.' In one breath, he tells the Senate that 
Great Britain will go to war for Oregon; and in the 
next that the Hudson Bay company will voluntari- 
ly retreat before the advancing tide of our agricul- 
tural population, and abandon it without a struggle. 
Rest assured, sir, England is too wise to risk a war for 
such a possession, valuable as it may be, on such a 
claim of title as she presents. She is wise as she is 

fiowerful. Look at her position in regard to Ire- 
and. What is that island at this hour hut a maga- 
zine of gunpowder, ready to explode at any instant^ 
A single spark may light in a moment the flames of 
a civil war. Look at the discontents which so ex- 
tensively prevail throughout the island of Great 
Britain itself, springing from the wunt and misery 
of millions of her subjects, and from other danger-' 
ous causes which I shall not now enumerate. "Al- 
though in profomul peace with all the world, in ad- 
dition to all the other taxes on her subject.s, she has 
been compelled to resort to a heavy income tax to 
support her government. She is dependent upon 
us for the most valuable foreign trade which she 
enjoys with any civilized nation; nor can she sup- 
ply the demands of China for her cotton fabrics, 
and thus realize the visions of wealth which she 
sees in the perspective, without first obtaining the 
raw material from our fertile fields. England, as I 
have already said, is wise as well as great and pow- 
erful; and she will never go to war with us unless 
upon a question in which her honor is involved. It is a 
moral impossibility that, at this day, in the nine- 
teenth century of the Christian era. Great Britain 
will go to war for Oregon; when the facts and argu- 
ments in favor of our title are so clear, that they 
would prove at once to be conclusive before any 
impartial, independent, and enlightened tribunal. 
There is no danger of a war, unless it may be from 
our own pitiful and pusillanimous course — unless, 
without making any serious efl'ort to adjust our con- 
flicting claims, we timidly stand by and suffer her 
to settle the territory to such an extent that it will 
be out of her power to abandon her subjecl.-N there, 
without violating her faith to them. The present 
is the propitious moment to settle the-whole ques- 
tion; and 1 conscientiously believe that the mode 
proposed by my friends and myself would prove the 
best means of attaining the object. 

I admit, with regret, that some very dangerous 
symptoms exist in both countries at the present mo- 
ment. The whole press of Great Britain — her maga- 
zines and quarterlies, and all, without distinction of 
sect or party — for the last two years, has teemed 
"with abuse of America, and all that is American. 
Our institutions, our literature, and everything con- 
nected with us, have been subjects of perpetual 
Tfituperation. Such abuse is unexampled at any 
former period £>( her history. Thus the minds of 



the British people hare been inflamed into national 
hostility against us. 

And, on the other liand, what is the state of pub- 
lic feeling among ourselves.' Although there are 
many, especially in our large cities, who entertain 
an affectionate feeling towards England, (insomuch 
that, on a great public occasion in the largest of 
these cities, the health of "the President of the 
United States" was drunk in silence, whilst that of 
"GLueen Victoria" was received with thunders of 
apjjlause,) yet, among the great mass of our people, 
a very different feeling prevails. They still remem- 
ber the wrongs they have endured in days past; they 
remember these, perhaps, with too deep a sensibili- 
ty. And although senators on this floor may please 
tlicir ears with terms of mutual endearment by styl- 
ing the two nations "the mother" and "the 
daughter," yet a vast majority of our countrymen 
are penetrated with the conviction that, towards us, 
England has ever acted the part of a cruel step- 
mother. It is this deep-wrought conviction, these 
arssocialions of former scenes with the universal 
abuse at present poured out upon us by the British 
press and people, which lie at the foundation of the 
national cnmily which now too extensively pre- 
vails. It is these injuries on the one side, and their 
remembrance on the other, which keeps up the ill 
blood between the two countries. There is surely 
nothing in the existing relations between them 
which will cau.^e our people to forget that there is 
one calamity still worse than war itself, and that is 
the sacrifice of national honor. 

I repeat the declaration, that, for myself, I am 
deeply anxious to preserve peace. There is noth- 
ing like blustering in my nature; and the use of lan- 
guage of such a character would be unworthy of 
ourselves. Besides, it could produce no possible 
effect upon the power witli whom we have this con- 
troversy, and would injure rather than advance our 
cause. I am, notwithstanding, in favor of asserting 
our rights in a manly tone, and in a fearless manner. 
The time has, I believe, come, when it is dangerous 
any longer to tamper with the Oregon question. So 
far as my voice may go, I shall refuse longer to de- 
lay the settlement of this question. I shall not con- 
sent to its postponement. 1 would send our people 
west of the Rocky mountains whenever they may 
choose to go; but I would send them there under 
the protection and restraint of law; and if I did not 
in my heart believe this to be the best mode of in- 
suring to us the possession of our own territory, 
and preserving the national peace in company with 
the national honor, I should not so long have de- 
tained the Senate in presenting my views on thia 
important subject. 

Is Senate, March 20, 1844. 
Extract frmn the remarks of Mr. Buchanan in reply to 

Mr. Rives, on the subject of the map of George III. 

After (at the request of Mr. Buchanan) extracts 
from the speeches of Sir Robert Peel :ind Lord 
Brougham had been read by the secretary from 
Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, containing all 
they had said on the subject of this ma]) — which will 
be found in tlie appendix — Mr. Buchanan proceeded 
to say, that after the readingofthe.se extracts, it would 
require but few observations from him to establish 
his first position; which was, that the British gov- 
ernment, at the time when they sent Lord Ashburton 
here to negotiate a treaty, were in possession of a 
map of such high authority, and such undoubted 
authenticity, that in the opinion both of Sir Robert 



12 



Peel, the prime minifiter of England, and Lord 
Brougham, its production woukl have settled the 
northeastern boundary question, beyond all further 
controversy, in favor of the United States. In order 
to illustrate the conchisive character of this map, it 
might be necessary to make a very few observa- 
tions. 

Richard Oswald was the . sole negotiator, on the 
part of Great Britain, of the provisional articles of 
the treaty of peace, concluded with the United States 
at Paris, on the 30th November, 1782. He, Mr. B., 
had carefully compared the article of this treaty de- 
fining the boundaries of the United States, with the 
corresponding article in the definitive treaty of peace 
concluded on the 3d September, 1783, and found 
them to be identically the same, — word for word. 
It was cleai-, therefore, that Mr. Oswald's treaty had 
fixed the boundaries of the United States; and that, 
in this respect, the subsequent treaty of 1783, nego- 
tiated by David Hartley, on the part of Great Brit- 
ain, v/as but a mere copy and ratification of the 
treaty of 1782. 

It was well known that George the Third prized 
his North American colonies as the most precious 
jewel in his crown. He had adhered to them witji 
the grasp of fate; and even when, at one time, Lord 
North was willing to bring the war to a conclusion 
by acknowledging their independence, the King, 
still hoping against hope, that he might ultimately 
be able to .subdue them, insisted on its continuance 
a little longer. It was notorious to the whole world 
that he felt the deepest interest in the question. Was 
it not, then, highly probable — nay, was it not abso- 
lutely certain, that when Mr. Oswald returned from 
Paris, after concluding the provisional treaty, the 
very first inquiry of his sovereigii would be, — 
where is tlie boundary line of my dominions in 
America.' Show me on the map what portion of 
Ihem the treaty has retained, euid what portion it 
has surrendered. Besides, such an inquiry would 
fall in with one of the King's peculiar tastes, for he 
"was (says Sir Robert Peel) particularly curious in 
respect to geographical inquiries." 

George the Third, as history represented him, 
was probably, to a certain extent, a man of narrow 
prejudices; but he was a sovereign of sound judg- 
ment, and incorruptible personal integrity. Those 
best calculated to judge of his abilities had spoken 
of them in the most favorable terms. Mr. B. here 
referred to the account which had been given by 
Mr. Wesley and Dr. Johnson of their interviews 
with him. When Mr. Adams, our first minister to 
Great Britain, after the treaty of peace, was pre- 
sented to the King, his declaration was character- 
istic and honorable: "I have been the last man in 
my dominions to accede to this peace which sepa- 
rates A,"nerica from my kingdom: I will be the first 
man, now it i.s made, to resist any attempt to in- 
frmge it." It now appeared that there had been 
found in his private library a map, on v.'hich was 
marked a boundary line between his North Ameri- 
can provinces and tlie United States, which gave us 
the whole of the disputed territory; and if this had 
been all, the fact might possibly have been explain- 
ed consistently with the claims of Great Britain. 
But, according to the testimony of Sir Robert Peel, 
on this "broad red line" there was marked, in four 
different places, not merely the words "boundary of 
the United States," nor yet "boundary of Mr. Os- 
wald's treaty;" but these emphatic word — "Boun- 
dary, as desciibed by our negotiator, Mr. Oswald." 
Was not this convincing — conclusive proof, that 



either Mr. Oswald had marked this boundary line, 
or that it had been done by some person under his 
direction, at the request of George III himself.' But 
even this was not all: Lord Brougham had express- 
ed the opinion in the House of Lords, from the in- 
formation he had received, that the words, "Boun- 
dary, as described by our negotiator, Mr. Oswald," 
was in the proper hand-writing of that sovereign. 

After all this, well might Sir Robert Peel declare 
that he did not believe "that that claim of Great 
Britain was well founded; that it is a claim which 
the negotiators intended to ratify;" and well might 
Lord Brougham say, in his characteristic manner, 
that the production of this map by Lord Ashburtoii 
would have shown "that he had not a leg to .stand 
upon," and that it "entirely destroys all our conten- 
tion, and gives all to the Americans." 

Here, then, was the highest and most conclusive 
evidence against the British claim. Here was the 
acknowledgment of the British sovereign himself, 
under his own hand, from whose kingdom the 
American colonies had been wrested, that the boun- 
dary described by his own negotiator in the trea- 
ty of peace gave the whole of the disputed territo- 
ry to the United States. Here was the confession 
against him.self, of the individual interested, above 
all others, in the question, and made long before 
any controversy had arisen on the subject. It was 
highly probable — nay, almost certain — that this map, 
found in the library of George III, was the very 
map from which Mr. Faden, the British royal ge- 
ographer, drew his map of 1783, mentioned by Sir 
Robert Peel, which also gave to the United States 
all the territory in dispute. 

But the Senator from Virginia had contended 
that there was no evidence to prove that Lord Ash- 
burton, when he concluded his treaty, had any 
knowledge of the existence of this map; had declared 
that if it v.'ere in his possession, when he assured 
Mr. Webster, in the most solenm manner, that it 
was his belief that the negotiators of the treaty of 
1782 meant to throw all the waters which were 
tributary to the river St. John within the Briti.sh 
territory, it was impossible he could, with honor, 
have made such an asseveration; and that, admit- 
ting the map to be as he (Mr. B.) had descrilied it, 
"no epithet in the language would be strong enough 
to express the infamy which must brand any gov- 
ernment which could conduct its high diplomatia 
intercourse in such a manner." 

Now, sir, let me, in the first place, do justice to 
myself, as v/ell as to Lord Ashburton. After a 
careful examination of the debate as reported by 
Hansard, the highest authority, and which he had 
never before seen, he most cheerfully admitted that 
the reference in the following sentence of Sir Robert 
Peel, was to Lord Palmerston and not to Lord Ash- 
burton: "That map was in possession of the late 
King, and it was also m possession of the nobie lord; 
but he did not communicate its contents to Mr. 
Webster." From the newspaper reports of the de- 
bate which he had read, he had never doubted — he 
had never heard it doubted by any person, but that 
the reference was to Lord Ashburton. He had 
been convinced of his error, however, by Hansard's 
report of the debate, and it afforded him great plea- 
sure to retract it. 

But, did it not require a mantle of charity broader 
than had ever been cast over any individual, to be- 
lieve that the British government, being in posses- 
sion of such a map — a map with such marks of au- 
tlienticity and sucli claims to the most conclusive- 



13 



authority — ^would have sent out Lord Ashburton to 
negotiate a treaty in relation to the very boundary 
which it described, and yet have left him in igno- 
rance of its existence? Would they not, at least, 
have furnished him a copy of it? for he supposed the 
original was too precious to be suffered to leave the 
Foreign Office, it was possible Lord Ashburton's 
character stood so high, as a man of honor and in- 
tegrity, that the British ministry might have deemed 
it unsafe to intrust him with such a secret, so fatal 
to their claims, from an apprehension that he might 
prove unwilling to exert himself in a cause which 
ne would then have known to be so bad. Mr. B. 
hoped this might nrove to be the fact; and declared 
that if it should be made clearly to appear, or if 
Lord Ashburton himself woiild disclaim tliat he had 
any knowledge of the existence of sucli a map, his 
opmion of that gentleman was so high he would rise 
instantly in his place and do him justice. 

There 'nas one sentence in Sir Robert Peel's 
speech, in which he observed that Lord Ashburton 
"liad a ri|ht to presume that he was sent abroad in 
possessioc of all the elements of information on 
which a satisfactory conclusion could be come to." 
Undoubtedly he had a right thus to presume ; and 
if this map had been concealed from him, he 
would have had just cause of complaint. If 
Lord Ashburton was not present at the debate, 
(and gentlemen informed him that he wa."? not,) he was 
undoubtedly one of the first persons who read the 
report of it the next morning in the London jour- 
nals. Now, if the government had left him in igno- 
rance of the existence of a document so impt)rtant 
in relation to hi.s mission — a map from the King's 
own library — should we not have heard some 
explanation from him? Would he not, at once, 
on the floor of the House of Lords, have in- 
dignantly denounced the concealment from him of 
such a proof of the justice of our claims — a con- 
cealment which had caused him erroneously to give 
to Mr. Webster t've most solemn personal assu- 
rances of his deep conviction of the justice of the 
British claim? Would not the speeches of Sir Rob- 
ert Peel and Lord Brougham, and the fact of the ex- 
istence of this map which they disclosed, have so 
nearly touched his sense of honor, that he could not 
have remained silent? Would he not at once ha.ve 
explained to us and to the whole world the position 
in which he had been left by the British ministry? 
Mr. B. said, it miglil be that he did not know of the 
existence of the map; but he was greatly afraid that 
Lord Ashburton entertained the same views of the 
duty of a negotiator which had been avowed by Sir 
Robert Peel in the House of Commons, and Lord 
Brougham in the House of Lords — that he was no 
more bound to produce any evidence which might 
■operate against the interest of his own government, 
no matter how unfour.ded their claim might be, than 
a lawyer was bound to disclose testimony which 
might injure his client. It was for this reason that, 
in referring to Lord Ashburton's conduct, he had 
studiously confined himself to the facts alone, Euid 
had avoided the use of all epithets. 

But the senator from Vn-ginia had gone further, 
and expressed his doubts as to whether the present 
British ministers themselves had any knowledge of 
the existence of this map of George the Third, when 
they sent Lord Ashburton upon his mission. He 
would examine this position for a few momenta^. 

How had this map been removed from the King^s 
library? It was stated that the entire library of his 
father had been given by the muoificence of George 



IV to the British Museum. From thencd it was re- 
moved to the Foreign Office during the time when 
Lord Palmerston was Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 
and placed among the archives of that department. 
Could it then be possible that the present British 
ministry were not aware of its existence ? A 
map of such liigh miportance, transferred from the 
British Museum, where it was public, (doubtless lest 
the eye of some prying American might rest upon it,) 
to the Foreign Office, and yet the sueces.sor of Lord 
Palmerston remain ignorant of its existence! A doc- 
ument the most important of any on Uie face of the 
earth for its bearing on the proposed treaty with 
this country, and yet the Eriti.sh Minister for For- 
eign Affairs know nothing concerning it while pre- 
paring the instructions for Lord Ashburton! It 
was impossible to imagine that some one of the offi- 
ciids in the Foreign Office, when Lord Aberdeen was 
investigating the subject, should not have brought 
this all-im]>ortant document to his notice, even if we 
could suppose he had before been ignorant of its ex- 
istence. If Lord Palmerston luid removed it from 
the Foreign Office on his own retirement, this fact 
would heve been stated by Sir Robert Peel, and he 
would have declared that it had never come to his 
knowledge. Yet, throughout his remarks, he spoke 
of it as he would have done of any other well known 
document, without the slightest intimation that the 
oresent ministry had been ignorant of its existence. 

Now, in the face of all that had transpired, both 
in the House of Cofhmons and the House of Lords, 
tlic senator from Virginia had produced an anony- 
mous note appended to a pamphlet containing Mr. 
Gallatin's memoir on the northeastern boundary, in 
which the unknown author says: "We have author- 
ity for stating that Lord Aberdeen has said that he 
was not personally aware of the existence of this 
map till after the conclusion of the treaty; and that 
Lord Ashburton was equally ignorant of it till his 
return to England." 

This v/as said; but by whom? Not by Lord Ab- 
erdeen — not by Lord Ashburton. Neither of them 
had ever made such a declaration in the House of 
Lords. Had any person ever disputed the tact that 
this map was in the Foreign Office when Sir Robert 
Peel and Lord Aberdeen came iiito power, more 
than a year before the date of Lord Ashburton's 
mission? It was impossible that this map shoidd 
have escaped the notice of Lord Aberdeen, imless it 
had been criminally kept a profound .secret from him, 
for some mysterious and imaccountable reason, by 
the officials whose duty it was to place in his hands 
all the information relative to this most important ne- 
gotiatioii- Lord Aberdeen had never accused them 
of any such concealment. The time to have dis- 
claimed cdl knowledge of the existence of the map 
was when the whole subject was under debate in 
Parliument, and when Sir Robert Peel acknowledged 
before the world that the claim which the British 
government had set up tigainst us for a portion of 
our territory was unfounded. The assertion in that 
note might be true: it was possible; but it was 
sc^arcely within the limits of the most remote proba 
bility. 

But this anonymous writer had gone still further, 
and had even cast doubts upon the correctness of Han 
sard's report of flie debate in the House of Commons 
— stating that, according to another report. Sir Rob- 
ert Peel, instead of asserting that he did not believe 
the British claim was well-founded, had stated his 
belief that it was well-founded. What report this 
could have been, was not stated. But could such 



14 



an aKserlion in an anonymous note weigh a feather 
against the report in Hansard's Parhamentary De- 
bates? A man writing under no responsibility, 
might make any assertion he pleased. Mr. B. did 
not Ijnow whether these speeches in Hansard were or 
were not revised by the speakers themselves; but he 
knew that they were considered the most authentic 
reports of any that were published. 

The senator from Virginia, impelled by his own 
high sense of honor, had declared that no epithet in 
our language could be strong enough to express the 
infamy of any government which conducted the 
high intercourse of its diplomacy in such a manner 
as would justly be inferred from the concealment of 
a map like this by the British ministry. But can 
doubt longer remain as to the fact of concealment on 
their part.' In the House of Lords, Lord Aberdeen 
had been sitting by Lord Brougham when he made 
the speech from which extracts had been read to the 
Senate, and when he had ridiculed the idea with 
scorn that the British government were under any 
obligation to produce this map. Nay, more: Lord 
Aberdeen had several times been appealed to by 
Lord Brougham in the course of his address; and 
yet he expressed no dissent, but sat in silence. 
Now Mr. B., whilst he agreed with the senator 
from Virginia as to the immorality of such conduct, 
could not think that it deserved such severe censure 
as had been applied to it. But did not the honora- 
ble senator perceive that all the severity of his lan- 
guage now applied, in its fullest force — in all its 
length and breadth — to the present British ministry.' 
He agreed with the senator that diplomacy was 
now conducted in a fairer and franker manner than 
it had been in ancient times; and he could never con- 
cur in the doctrine put forth by Lord Brougham, as 
to the lawfulness of concealing all evidence which 
made against our own side of the question in a na- 
tional dispute. According to the maxims of the 
ancient diplomacy and the doctrine of Lord Brough- 
am, a negotiator was bound to act for his country, 
in conducting a negotiation, just as a lawyer acted 
for his client, in conducting a cause. He must take all 
advantages he could obtain, and conceal everything 
which might weaken his own side of the question. 
His lordship had even ridiculed, in the bitterest and 
most scornful manner, the idea of showing one's 
hand in such a game. Here Mr. B. quoted Lord 
Brougham's language. 

There was one view of the case, however, which 
presented a still more serious aspect against the Brit- 
ish ministry than the concealment of this maj), 
highly improper as that may have been. It was 
this: that in the days of Lord Palmerston's ministry 
the British government was willing to press this 
claim to the point of actual war between the two na- 
tions, knowing, at the same time, as it now clearly 
appeared they did, that their claim was false ard 
unjust. Nothing but an overruling Providence had 
averted this calamity from the two nations, and 
prevented an actual collision between their forces on 
the northeastern boundary. 



ARPENDIX. 

Extract from Hansard'' s Parliamentary Debates, {3d 
series, vol. 67, pages 1247, '48, '49, and ^50,) of a 
speech, delivered by Sir Robert Peel in Ike House of 
Commons, on the 21s< March, 1843, on the svhject of 
the treat]! of Washington. 

But the noble lord considers that a certain map which 
has been found in the archives of the Foreign Office at 
Jaiis is conclueiTe eTideace of the Jvjstaess oi the British 



claims. Nov?, sir, 1 am not prepared to acquiesce in any 
such assertion. Great blame has been thrown upon Mr. 
Webster with respect to this map. He has been charged 
with perfidy and want of good faith in not having at ouce 
disclosed to Lord Asliburton the fact of his possessing this 
map. Now, I must say that it is rather hard, when we 
know what are the practices of diplomatists and negotia- 
tors, — I say it is rather hard to expect that thi; negotiator on 
the part of the United States should be held bound to dis-, 
close to tlie diplomatist with whom he was in treaty all the 
weak parts of his case; and I think, therefore, tha"t the re- 
llection cast upon Mr. Webster — a gEmtlcrnanof worth and 
honor — are, witli respect to this matter, very unjust. This 
map was, it is true, found iu the archives of the Foreign 
Ollice at Paris; and a letter of Dr. Fiaaklin's has also been 
found, having reference to some map; hut there is no direct 
connexion between the map so found and the letter of Dr. 
Franklin. In general, tliere is such a connexion, as in the 
case of maps referred to in despatches; but there is none in 
this case. There is nothing to show that the map so found 
is the identical map referred to by Dr. Franklin in his letter; 
and nothing can he more fallacious than relying on such 
maps. For, let me state what may be said upon the other 
side of the question with respect to maps. We made in- 
quiry about those maps in the Foreign Office at Paris, and 
we could find none such as that in question at first. We 
have not been so neglectful in former times with respect to 
t'le miitter as tlie noble lord seems to think. We made in- 
qiiiries, in 18^6 and 18'27, into the maps in the Foreign Office 
at Paris, for the purpose of throwing light upon the inten- 
tions of the negotiators of 1783. A strict search was made 
lor any documents bearing in any manner upon the disputed 
question; but, at that time, neither letter nor map could be 
found. However, there were afterwards discovered, by a 
gentleman engaged in writing a history of America, a letter 
and a certain ntap, supposed Ijy him to be the map referred 
to in the letter, in answer to our first inquiry, as 1 have al- 
ready stated, yo such map could be discovered. The first 
which we received from the Foreign Office at Paris was a 
map framed in 1783 by Mr. Faden, geographer to the lung 
of England. On tliat map is inscribed, '"A map of the 
boundary of the iuited States, as agreed to by the treaty of 
1783: by Mr. Faden, geogi-aplier to the King." Now, sir, 
that map placed the boundary according to the American 
claim. Vet it was a cotemporarj' map, and it was pub- 
lished by the geograjiher to the Bi-itish King. There was a. 
work which I have here, a political periodical of the time, 
published in 178;$, called Bi'we's Journal- It gives a full re- 
port of the debate in Parliament upon the treaty thi n being' 
concluded; and, in order to illustrate the I'eport, it also gives 
a map of the boundaries between the counlries as then agreed 
to. That map, sir, also adopts the line claimed by the 
United States. On subsequent inquiry at Pai'is, we found a 
map, which must be the map referred to by Mr. Jared 
Sparks, There is placed upon that map a broad red line, 
and that line marks out the boundary as claim.ed by the 
British. It is probably a rnap by M. d'Anville, of 174t), and 
there can be no doubt but that it is tlie map referred to by 
Mr. Jared Sparks; but we can trace no indication of con- 
nexion between it and the despatch of Dr. Franklin. To 
say that they were connected, is a mere unfounded infer- 
ence. 

But there is still another map. Here — in this country — 
in the library of the late King, was deposited a map by 
Mitchell, ofthe date I'^'i. That map was in the possession of 
tlie late King, and it was also in possession of the noble 
lord, but he did not communicate its contents to Mr. Web- 
ster. It is marked by a bioad red line, and on that line is 
written, "Boundary, as described by our negotiator, Mr. 
Oswald;" and that" line follows the claim of the United 
States. That map was on an extended scale. It was in pos- 
session of the late King, who was particularly curious in 
respect to geogx'ajjhical inquiries. On that map, I repeat, 
is placed the boundary line — that claimed by ttie United 
States — and on four dift'erent places on that line, "Boundary, 
as described by Oswald." Now, 1 do not say that that was 
the boundary ultimately settled by the negotiators; but 
nothing can be more fallacious than founding a claim upon 
cotemporary maps, unless you can also prove that they 
were adopted by the negotiators; and, when the noble lord 
takes it for granted that, if we had resorted to arbitration, 
we should have been successful in obtaining our claims, I 
cannot help thinking that the matter would be open to 
much discussion. Indeed, I do not believe that that claini 
of Great Britain was well founded — that is a claim which 
the negotiators intended to ratify. 1 cannot say, either, that 
the inquiries which have been instituted since Mr. Sparks's 
discovery have materially strengthened my conviction 
eitlier way. I think they leave matters much as they were; 
and nothing, I think, can be more delusive than the expec- 
tation that, if the question were referred to arbitration, the 



15 




suhscqi.ently to the conclusion of the ne-otiatious con- 1 lent good comp,my. It does so happen tirat there was a mao 
ducted by Lord Ashburton. The noble lord opposite | published by the KinK-« geographe|r in this counlry in the 

" 'an 

was 

to- 

[The 

that 

:i!!=^°;:ll*!i,5:'-^^?i.i'™'v">^-<^-.i'!«"-i-^i"-^ ^ i^rr'at thr"scZMi;nTJr"\^ 




discovery of the map in Paris, even if it could be positively ica, and there was' nothing he dcploVcd co nuch as that"*;; 
i".■T5':i^.":":'^°.e "3"!^''°^ ''"1>"«^'»- ^""W.be no groun'd | aration having taken place. The King-s gcogrtplS Mr: 

Padcn, published his map 1783, which contains, not the Brit- 



i'or the impeachment of the treaty of Lord Ashburton" or for 

proving that he hud not ably and honorably discharged his | ish, but" the American li'ue 



M hy did not my nol)le friend 



duties If blame should fall upon anyone, it should lal'l | take over a copy of that map? My noble friend oiinosile 
fTvearr ''"''■'' """" '>°"'^"<=""S these negotiations (Lord Aberdeelif is a can.Ud'man;LTan exp:^ien^K! 
•* ■ ' plomatist, both abroad and at home; he is not unlettered, but 

''" '■'■■ ~ "' ' " the crafts of diiduniacy'and 

■ -eal this map.' AVe have a 
I, on the part of America, 

^f T I ji -,1. 1 •■1 -....n '^ , I .v,-^ '• ■"■o*" to have sent out the man 

oj Lmi-Os onJUeilhjlpnl, lb43, ou the proposition vf\°i ;^'!'; '•adca. an'l said, 'this is George the Third-s map.'' 




thanks to Lord Miburton for the treaty of Wask- 

ington. 

A great charge against Mr. Webster is, that he sup- 
pressed the map of Dr. Franklin in the course of the neiro- 
tiation; and this suppression has been said to savor of bad 
laith. J deny it. 1 deuy that a negotiator, in carrying on a 
controversy, as represeHting his own country, with a for- 
eign country, is l)ound to disclose to the other party what- 
ever he may know that tells against his own country and 
for the opposite party. I deny that he is so bound, 'any 
more than an advocate is bound to tell the cdurt all that he 
deems to make against his own client and for his adversary. 
My noble friend, Lord Ashburton, has been objected to— my 
noble friend opposite has been blamed for selecting him— 
because he is not a regular bred diplomatist ; because 
he is not acquainted with diplomatic lore; t>ecauseheis a 
plain unlettered man as regards diplomatic aflairs; and be- 
cause he had only the guide of common honesty and com- 
mon sense, great experience of men, great general knowl- 
edge, a thorough aciiuaintance with the interests of his own 
country and of the country he was sent to, for his guide in 
the matters he was to negotiate. But 1 believe my noble friend 
has yet to learu this one lesson— that it is the duly of expe- 
rienced diplomatists, of regular bred politicians, of those 
who have grown gray in the mystery of negotiation and the 
art of stateseraft, that when you Sre sent to represent a 
country, and to get the best terms vou can for it, to lower 
the terms of the opposite party, and" to exalt the terms of 
your own, as (ar as may be— you ought first of all to 
disclose all the weaknesses of your own case— that 
your duty to your country is something, but that your 
duty is first to the opposite party, and that you are bound 
to tell everything that makes for that adverse party. That 
is your duty; that is one of those arts of diplomacy which 

have lain concealed until the f 

those principles of statesmanship 
6th of Victoria to produce and pn 

assuredly not quite understood by that old French states 
man, albeit trained in the diplomatic school, who said that 
language had been conferred upon men by Providence for 
the purpose of concealing their thoughts. This was a les- 
son he had yet to learn, this regular-bred diplomatist— this 
practised negotiator. He certainly could not have thought 
that it was his duty to practise a window in his bosom, and 
let every one see what passed in his mind. But it was the 
duty, it seems, of my noble friend to tell all; and it was 
equally the reciprocal duty of Mr. Webster to do the same. 
]t was my noble friend's duty^to disclose all that he had 



But it never occurred to my noble friend to do so. Then 
two years after .Mr. Faden published that map, another was 
published, and that took the British line. This, however 
came out after the boundary had become matter of control 
versy, post Uliint motam. But, at all events, my noble friend 
had to contend with the force of the argument against Mr. 
Webster, and America had a right to the benefit of both 
maiiB. My noble friend oj.posite never sent it over, and no- 
body ever blamed him for it. But that was not all. What 
il there was another map containing the American line, and 
never corrected at all by any subsequent chart coming from 
the same custody ? And what if that map came out of the 
custody of a person high in office in this eountrv— nay what 
It It came out of the custody of the highest functionary of 
all,— of George 3d himself.' I know that map— I know a 
map which I can trace to the custody of George 3d, andoa 
which there is the American line and not the Englisli line and 
upon which there is a uote, that from the hand-writing as it 
has been described to me, makes me think it was the note of 
George 3d himself: "This is the line of Mr. Oswald's treaty ia 
1783," written three or four times ujjon the face of it. Now 
suppose this should occur— 1 do not know that it has happen- 
ed— but it may occur to a Secretary of State for Foreign 
Aflairs,— cither to my noble friend or Lord Palmerston, 
who, 1 understand by cor.imon report, taken a great interest 
in the question; and though he mav not altogether approve 
of the treaty, he may peradventure envy the .success which 
attended it, foK it was a success which did not attend any 
ol hi;; own American negotiations. But it is possible that 
my noble friend or Lord Palmerston may have discovered 
that there was this map, because George 3d's librarv by 
the munificence of George 4th, was giVen to the B'ritish 
iMuseum, and this map must have been there; but it is a 
curiouscircum.stancethatit is no longer there. 1 suppose 
,^,„ itmust have been taken out of the British Museum for the 

e present year 1843-oneol | purpose of being «ent over to my noble friend in America- 
lip which It remained for the and that, according to the new doctrines of diplomacy he 
promulgate but which were was bound to have used it wheii there, in oi-acr to show 

'■" *' '-^ '"■'•""'■ -'■■"- tliat he had no case-that he not a leg to stand upon. Why 

did he not take it over with him? Pmbr.bly he did not 
know of its existence. I am told that it is not now in the 
British Museum, but that it is in the Foreign Office. Proba- 
bly it was known to exist; but somehow or other that map, 
which entirely destroys our contention and gives all to the 
Americans, has been removed from the British Museum, 
and is now to be found at the Foreign Oflice. Kxplain it a* 
you will, Uiat is the simple fact, that this important majv 
was removed from the museum to the omce, and not in tie 
time of my noble frietd [Lord Aberdeen.] 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



017 185 146 4 



